NY Times cultural scold Ross Douthat complains that the forces of LGBTQ equality are sore winners and that the veto of Arizona's "religious freedoms" bill really means that we should stop being so awful to the people who see them as sinners who need to be punished.
What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore.
Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.
I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.
But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.
Alas and alack! If only the horribly tyrannic equality forces who will probably win a Supreme Court ruling would give Ross Douthat a way to still legally practice hating those people!
Sure, just like women "won" after Roe v Wade. How many legal loopholes and blockades can same-sex marriage opponents put on getting married in red states? Works for abortion clinics, right?
Posts
1 comment:
As near as I can tell, Arizona was trying to legalize ritual human sacrifice by Satanist cults. These would be "sincerely held religious beliefs", and thus could be practiced without oppressive and burdensome government regulations - right? (Of course, as we all know, only Southern Baptists have sincerely-held religious beliefs - no others need apply.)
Post a Comment